Sorry I haven't posted within a week. I'm spending my Spring Break in Cleveland, and without my usual T-1 bandwith at college, web surfing is a chore, much akin to Art history, or multiplying letters. In any case, the hottest topic in the Rust belt is Cleveland's voucher program up before the supreme court. I'd fish a few links from the internet, but my means are crude and primative. Any thoughts?

Try this url at The Economist:

http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=998842

Ooooh, very good. Now tell me, is it a Journal or a magazine?

It's The Economist, which calls itself a newspaper, but appears weekly in the format of a magazine.

I'm a Libertarian. I'm pro-choice on everything. (No smiley.)

Anyone with the NEA want to argue about church and state? My position will be that it does not promote any religion since the voucher goes to the parents, not the school.

It may not directly or intentionally promote any religion, but it does amount to indirect subsidization of religious schools, considering that the "demand" for said schools is increased by the voucher programme.

William has a point, Josh.

How many of last year's tax rebates went to religious school tuition, church/synagogue dues, or some other religious purpose? Couldn't that also be considered an indirect subsidy to religion?

Disclaimer: personally, I'm against vouchers.

Well, it really depends on how you interpret the "promotion of religion."

In any case, I'm against vouchers too - is it not more effective to fund properly a strong public system than subsidize tuition?

More to the point, are not private schools supposed to be an option for individuals to "opt out" of the public system, at their own expense, I might add?

Ultimately, public money will be going indirectly to private schools. So why are they still called "private" schools?

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances


I cut and pasted that because it might be good to talk about "establishment" of a religion as opposed to "promotion". Yes, they are almost synonyms, but this is nitcentral. By taxing the parents government is removing their tuition money and prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Non-vouchers systems are unconstitutional.

The "demand" is created by the state's school's failure. Why should only Enron execs get the choice of schools?

The objections that I have to the voucher schemes:

1. Private schools are not held to the same standards as public schools.

2. Private schools self-select the students they want. So when they are compared to public schools, it is not an even comparison.

3. Why can they create a voucher system but they can't fix the public school system?

4. They leave children whose parents can't or won't care enough in a failing school.

Merry

The "demand" is created by the state's school's failure. Why should only Enron execs get the choice of schools?

But how will a voucher system provide anything but a short term solution? Should not the money spent on tax credits (and it IS an expenditure) be actually IMPROVING the schools?

And if private schools are receiving tuition fees paid for by tax credits, they are most certainly receiving money that otherwise would be in the public purse. Are they still "private" schools if their revenue is dependent on the state subsidization of their students?

Along the same lines, if a private school (or any organization) receives public funding, directly or indirectly, should it not be the subject to the same oversight as are public schools? That is to say, why should a "private" institution with indirect public funding be subject to less oversight than the same sort of institution with direct public funding?

I had a long answer typed out to this, but I just lost it, so I'll be relatively brief.

Putting (anti-)religious political propaganda before good education is ridiculous. What matters is how well schools educate their pupils, not whether they are Christian or Athiest ie. state, schools.

In Britain, a public school is one your parents pay fees for you to attend. Such schools are owned by members of the public, rather than the state. I think it makes more sense to call private schools public schools. The same should be done for "public parks" when people really mean "state parks".

Merry's objections are fine, but they shouldn't change people's mind about the scheme. Negligent, •••••• parents are not going to be changed by scrapping or by introducing the scheme, so this point is moot. Second, the reason the public school system cannot be fixed is partially down to the fact that it is not paid for by fees, which draw the best teachers. But it is mainly because state schools have to deal with all sorts of beaurocratic, PC nonsense. Fixing the public schools would mean the following politically unpopular measures:

* Discipline, firm rules, caning and school uniform.

* Allowing some optional religious activity, such as school prayer

* Ending the Gestapo-like witchhunts of the ACLU, so that religious biology teachers who teach evolution and also teach some of the problems with the theory are not sent out of school any more than schoolgirls who wear green and red scarves and say "Merry Christmas" in the classroom. I believe in the theory of evolution, but to do such a thing to a decent teacher on such grounds is unscientific and McCarthyite. It means that if a New York school puts up a sign commemorating the dead of September 11th with the words " In God we trust" in it, the school is not forced to take it down. (In case you never noticed, these very words appear on federal currency.) Separation of church and state is a fine theory, but it is unconstitutional. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" does not say "the state must silence all religious expression".(1) Schools are not Congress, and their signs and prayers are not laws.

* It would mean rigorous concentration on spelling and grammar, and standards that would not fall, even if that meant few did well in terms of results.

* It would mean an end to the racist laws that make race a more important qualification than talent.

* It would mean selection on the basis of ability.

Merry, if you support all these things, and genuinely believe they are going to be implemented, then you do have a right to complain. If not, you have only yourself and those like you to blame.

There is nothing short-term about this scheme, unless it is abolished any time soon. And *EVERYTHING* is short-term if it is swiftly abolished. If it isn't, far from being short-term, it could go on `till the end of time.

In Britain, the government is encouraging more state church schools - with the support of the Official Opposition - for the simple reason that most of the time the church school is the good school. I hope they can bring some meaning and genuine education to the lives of some of the very confused young people I know. Maybe sex education lessons will even include the word "marriage"!

Peter.

(1) As one letter I read recently put it:

"The stretching of the Constitutional prohibition "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" to silence any religious expression at all is symptomatic of the current vogue toward making the law say what we'd like it to say rather than what it actually says ... If the meaning of the Constitution has become that subjective and that elastic, then the end result is that the judiciary gets to rule by decree. There has always been a certain amount of that sort of thing, and will be as long as judges have any leeway for interpretation, but the trend now seems to be to make up "law" out of whole cloth and then rationalize it by twisting actual law out of all recognition. The logical end of that course is despotism. Not a bad thing as long as the despotism is benevolent, but they never stay benevolent for very long.

The Constitution was written from a very Calvinist viewpoint. The Framers assumed that if anyone was given the opportunity to abuse power they would do so, and thus they went to great lengths to prevent anyone from having too much power to abuse. In these post-Christian times we've left behind the idea of the inherent untrustworthiness of humanity as a whole, and we've become comfortable with granting powers to our "leaders" that would have horrified earlier generations. I 'spect we're going to live to regret it."

Firstly, the reason we call them "private" schools is due to the reality that they are PRIVATELY owned and operated, while "public" schools are PUBLICLY owned and operated. Say "state" schools if you wish, it matters very little, other than to you.

Second, the reason the public school system cannot be fixed is partially down to the fact that it is not paid for by fees, which draw the best teachers. But it is mainly because state schools have to deal with all sorts of beaurocratic, PC nonsense.

What do you mean by "fees"? I hardly see how the fact that parents pay tuition directly to the schools draws "the best teachers."

As for bureaucratic, PC nonsense, how many US schools have you been to that have provided you with first-hand knowledge of this? (Well, I suppose, my answer would be "none" too, but I did spend thirteen years in the Canadian system, and I know of a little "bureaucratic, PC nonsense.")

* Discipline, firm rules, caning and school uniform.

These may be politically popular, but they are wrongheaded. "Discipline" and "firm rules" could have very broad definitions - define them. Obviously any school has rules that are enforced by staff. As for caning, I hardly see how assaulting children will improve their education. Finally, concerning school uniforms, I believe a simple dress code will suffice.

* Allowing some optional religious activity, such as school prayer

Well, all my schools had "moments of silence" after O Canada in the morning, certainly no school prayer though.

Peter,

See my comments.

“Putting (anti-)religious political propaganda before good education is ridiculous. What matters is how well schools educate their pupils, not whether they are Christian or Athiest ie. state, schools.”

I don’t like voucher system if all the children went to non-religious private schools.

“In Britain, a public school is one your parents pay fees for you to attend. Such schools are owned by members of the public, rather than the state. I think it makes more sense to call private schools public schools. The same should be done for "public parks" when people really mean "state parks".”

This is merely a difference in American English and British English. I know that when my British friends say “public school,” it means a private school to me and when they say, “I just stuffed myself full of biscuits while watching Dr. Who,” it means they had cookies. Language rarely makes sense.

“Merry's objections are fine, but they shouldn't change people's mind about the scheme. Negligent, •••••• parents are not going to be changed by scrapping or by introducing the scheme, so this point is moot.”

No, the point is not moot. I believe in a school system that allows any and every child to succeed and I don’t believe in separate but equal. What voucher systems will do is allow private schools to pick off the students they want and leave the public schools to deal with the “less desirable” students at lowered funding. It will also punish children for their parents’ actions.

“Discipline, firm rules, caning and school uniform.”

I agree that discipline is needed. However, discipline does not necessarily equal corporeal punishment.

*” Allowing some optional religious activity, such as school prayer”

No one is preventing a child from praying in school. What is prevented is school-sanctioned prayer. How would what you propose improve schools?

* “Ending the Gestapo-like witchhunts of the ACLU, so that religious biology teachers who teach evolution and also teach some of the problems with the theory are not sent out of schoolany more than schoolgirls who wear green and red scarves and say "Merry Christmas" in the classroom. I believe in the theory of evolution, but to do such a thing to a decent teacher on such grounds is unscientific and McCarthyite. It means that if a New York school puts up a sign commemorating the dead of September 11th with the words " In God we trust" in it, the school is not forced to take it down. (In case you never noticed, these very words appear on federal currency.) Separation of church and state is a fine theory, but it is unconstitutional. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" does not say "the state must silence all religious expression".(1) Schools are not Congress, and their signs and prayers are not laws.”

I’m not really sure what any of this has to do with the discussion of school vouchers and repairing the public school system. I agree, there’s lots of •••••• things happening but picking out isolated incidents and claiming this is why the whole system is •••• doesn’t seem reasonable.

* “It would mean rigorous concentration on spelling and grammar, and standards that would not fall, even if that meant few did well in terms of results.”

I agree that we should have rigorous standards and that we should have good testing. However, we should not just concentrate on spelling and grammar, but also on mathematics, history, physical education, sciences, etc. I know lots of people who can memorize how to spell words, but aren’t very educated.

*”It would mean an end to the racist laws that make race a more important qualification than talent.”

Um, what laws are these?

* “It would mean selection on the basis of ability.”

Please explain further.

“Merry, if you support all these things, and genuinely believe they are going to be implemented, then you do have a right to complain. If not, you have only yourself and those like you to blame.”

I’m not quite sure what you mean by this paragraph. I’m an American. I have a right and duty to complain even if I don’t understand the subject. []

How to improve the public schools

1. Abolish the petty little boards of education or at least diminish their power substantially.

2. Tell schools that if they don’t maintain a high level of excellence, they cannot have sports teams.

3. Pay teachers and treat teachers as professionals, not as baby sitters.

4. Stop treating every child as if they must go to college. Establish vocational schools that can be attended by students as young as 14.

5. Repair the school buildings, make sure the textbooks and other materials are not out of date and are adequate.

6. Develop a plan to educate adults in the community and to increase community involvement.

7. Screen each child for health issues and ensure they are treated adequately.

8. Have testing that actually measures a child’s knowledge and performance.

9. Understand that there is no one right way to teach each child. Some children will learn to read through a mostly phonics based system but others will not.

10. Let the younger grades—pre-k, k, and 1st go back to being the time when children work on social skills, pre-reading skills, and early math skills. Some children, especially boys, are not ready for a heavy text-based-sit still-and-learn method at this age.

11. Bring back recess, at least 30 minutes at a time in elementary and at least 15 minutes in upper grades. More physical activity will decrease behavior problems and will allow children to work on social skills as well as academics.


Those are my thoughts.

Merry

4. Stop treating every child as if they must go to college. Establish vocational schools that can be attended by students as young as 14.

This is how the public system in Quebec works, actually.

11. Bring back recess, at least 30 minutes at a time in elementary and at least 15 minutes in upper grades. More physical activity will decrease behavior problems and will allow children to work on social skills as well as academics.

Agreed, but I think a bit of physical activity should be required all the way through school for the same reason.

Peter,

I would like to say that I have always regarded the schools you pay fees for as private schools not public schools. I am English, the only schools that I would call 'public' schools are those in the higher echelons of the private system.

*In Britain, a public school is one your parents pay fees for you to attend. Such schools are owned by members of the public, rather than the state. I think it makes more sense to call private schools public schools. The same should be done for "public parks" when people really mean "state parks".*
Fingers

Josh, state schools are not owned and run by the public. That is the point. They are owned and run by the government. Private schools, on the other hand, *are* owned and run by members of the public. Public ownership is private ownership, not state ownership.

No one advocates assault on a child. Caning is a useful option to be available.

No, the point is not moot.

Point four is moot because that is present in either system. The fact that bad parents will exist before and after school vouchers are introduced is no justification for not introducing them.

I agree that we should have rigorous standards and that we should have good testing. However, we should not just concentrate on spelling and grammar

Sigh. I did not say we should concentrate only on spelling and grammar.

Um, what laws are these?

Don't feign ignorance. You know what affirmative action is.

Please explain further.

Well briefly, the British grammar school system produced amongst the best schools in the world. Since its abolition, results and educational standards have plumetted (except in Northern Ireland, where grammar schools remained). In Britain, you took a test at 11, 13 and 14 to decide what secondary school you went to. If you passed, you would go to a grammar school. If you failed you went to a secondary modern school. It worked. Introducing the grammar school system in any country would do wonders, I believe, for its education system. Germany has a similar sort of system. In Ulster, pupils at secondary modern schools actually get better results than in British comprehensives. Just imagine how far ahead their grammar school kids are!

4. Stop treating every child as if they must go to college. Establish vocational schools that can be attended by students as young as 14.

I agree. Far too many people go to university to do all sorts of ridiculous courses. It is the result, and cause, of lower standards.

9. Understand that there is no one right way to teach each child. Some children will learn to read through a mostly phonics based system but others will not.

Sorry, but nice as this sounds to liberal ears, it is wrong. Again and again, studies show that rows of desks facing the teacher, who teaches the whole class, is the best general teaching method. As for teaching kids to read, from what I have heard, the modern method has been shown to be inferior, and the fact that in this country about 1/3 eleven-year-olds cannot read at the required level demonstrates that.

Peter.

Josh, state schools are not owned and run by the public. That is the point. They are owned and run by the government. Private schools, on the other hand, *are* owned and run by members of the public. Public ownership is private ownership, not state ownership.

You arguing over semantics. In North America PUBLIC schools are "state schools."

Similarly, "public ownership" is synonymous to "state ownership."

No one advocates assault on a child. Caning is a useful option to be available.

What is caning but assault?

"Point four is moot because that is present in either system. The fact that bad parents will exist before and after school vouchers are introduced is no justification for not introducing them."

No, parents who want their children to succeed will move their children to another school under the voucher system, rather than focusing attention on correcting the flaws in the system that they have now. What will be left in public schools are children whose parents do not care enough or are not able to move them, or children whom no private school will touch. I did not argue that vouchers would elminate bad parenting. Rather, that voucher systems will punish those not lucky enough to be born with competent parents.


"Um, what laws are these? "
"Don't feign ignorance. You know what affirmative action is."

You claimed “racist” laws. I don’t believe affirmative action is racist. Furthermore, most schools are so desperate for teachers affirmative action doesn’t come into play. It’s not a question of choosing from a vast field of candidates.

"9. Understand that there is no one right way to teach each child. Some children will learn to read through a mostly phonics based system but others will not.

Sorry, but nice as this sounds to liberal ears, it is wrong. Again and again, studies show that rows of desks facing the teacher, who teaches the whole class, is the best general teaching method. As for teaching kids to read, from what I have heard, the modern method has been shown to be inferior, and the fact that in this country about 1/3 eleven-year-olds cannot read at the required level demonstrates that. "

Peter, you are just plain wrong. The modern method, by which I assume you mean whole language, if taught properly, works fine. About 15% of school children will not learn to read SOLELY by the phonics method. For example, when I was in second grade, my teacher told my mother that, despite the fact I was already reading at a fourth grade level, I would never really go further than that—since I couldn’t do phonics. "There's only so many words she can memorize." However, I learned to read using other methods. Most of phonics still baffles me, yet I went on to skip my senior year of high school. Yes, phonics is a good part of any reading curriculum and many children learn just fine in the early years with it. Many do not. Each child is different and educators who are really committed to teaching each child will figure out a way to teach that child. And administrators and school boards and other parties will allow that teacher to use the methods he or she believes necessary to teach that child without trying to force certain methodology and dogma down the teacher's throat.


Let me add something else to this. The reason that schools worked so well fifty years ago is that they were not attempting to educate every person. That is, children who were disruptive, uninterested, or just didn't fit in did not go to, nor continue schooling. So what we are comparing is "the cream of the crop" fifty years ago to "all children" now.

Yes, we need to do a better job of educating all children. We need to improve a lot of things. But we need to be careful when we compare educational systems. Let's make sure the comparisons are accurate.

Merry

http://www.aft.org/research/vouchers/research/MYTHS/Myths.htm

Something for you to read.

You arguing over semantics. In North America PUBLIC schools are "state schools."

Hold on a minute. You asked a question and I answered it. Now, because you don't like the answer, you say I am arguing semantics? Public ownership should not be confused with state ownership.

What is caning but assault?

It is imposing sensible disciplinary measures on the wrong-doer. Got another silly question?

I did not argue that vouchers would elminate bad parenting. Rather, that voucher systems will punish those not lucky enough to be born with competent parents.

And equally, your reasoning seems to be to punish every child because you don't trust some parents to look after their kids properly.

You claimed “racist” laws. I don’t believe affirmative action is racist.

A law to encourage selection on the basis of race is not racist? ... Oh wait, I forgot. It doesn't count if the person is white.

Furthermore, most schools are so desperate for teachers affirmative action doesn’t come into play. It’s not a question of choosing from a vast field of candidates.

I understand AA extends to university places, and further .. ?

Peter, you are just plain wrong. The modern method, by which I assume you mean whole language, if taught properly, works fine.

Define "fine" for me. If "fine" is one-third of eleven year olds being unable to read properly, and huge numbers leaving school without this basic skill, then yes, things are "fine". But they were a lot better decades ago when this was unheard of. 15% being unable to read would be a massive improvement! under the modern education system.

Let me add something else to this. The reason that schools worked so well fifty years ago is that they were not attempting to educate every person. That is, children who were disruptive, uninterested, or just didn't fit in did not go to, nor continue schooling. So what we are comparing is "the cream of the crop" fifty years ago to "all children" now.

I don't accept this. I am sure truancy is at least as bad now as it has ever been, and as for continuing schooling, why do you think distruptive, disinterested kids should stay in school? What useful things are they going to be able to learn there? Why not give them other skills, as you advocated earlier, at fourteen- or sixteen years of age?

I'm a Libertarian. I'm pro-choice on everything. (No smiley.)

I don't think so. Are you pro-choice on murder, or slavery, or rape? Didn't think so. The fact is everyone is pro-choice on some things, and everyone is anti-choice on some things. That is why these silly slogans are useless to describe political positions. Everyone agrees that there are some things that are so wicked, disgusting, dangerous, selfish, cruel, harmful or immoral that there should be no choice about doing them - that they should be illegal. Where people disagree about these things is never, therefore, a matter of being in favour of, or against, choice.

Merry, I read your American Federal Teachers Union page, and I wasn't convinced by any of what they said. Some of the arguments were laughable. But anyway, I will go through them in turn.

MYTH: Private school choice lets parents pick the best school for a child by giving them a voucher to use at a public or private school.

FACT: Parents may choose a private school, but that doesn't mean the school will choose their child. Public schools have to take all children. Private schools don't.

Obviously, that does not mean you do not have a choice in selection. Having a criteria for students to fulfill does not mean those students are unable to apply in the first place. Pupils' parents can choose a private school, and the private school can choose pupils. Whereas without the vouchers, many would be unable to choose to go to these private schools even if the schools would love to have them.

MYTH: Private school choice would increase accountability in education by breaking up the public school monopoly and making schools more responsive to parents.

FACT: Private school choice would reduce accountability in education. The reason is simple: Private schools are exempt from almost all public regulations.

If regulations meant accountability, this world would be a much better place, believe me. There is probably enough red tape to wrap around the world in any one democracy these days.

Now as for the claim that state schools are any more accountable, let me see. If they are teaching your kids about sex and contraception but not the morality that goes with it, can you change that? If they want to hold a religious festival, can they do that, even if they want to? The fact is private schools have to be responsive to the wishes of the parents who fund them, or they are out of a job. The most (and only?) important wish is that their kids come out well educated, well balanced, decent and moral people. Private schools win hands down at this, which is why so many are willing to sacrifice so much to get their kids there.

MYTH: Private school choice would promote healthy competition between public and private schools and make all schools better.

FACT: Competition is healthy--when everyone has to play by the same rules. But the playing field for public and private schools is far from level.
As noted earlier, public schools must serve all children; private schools don't have to. Public schools must obey state and local regulations concerning discipline; health and safety; civil rights; special education; curriculum; student testing; teacher qualifications--the list goes on. Private schools are exempt from most of these rules.

In the name of fair competition, are proponents of choice ready to subject private and religious schools to the rules now governing public schools? Not a chance. Are they proposing to ask Congress, state legislatures, school boards, and the courts to roll back the laws and regulations governing public schools and allow them to behave like private schools? No. Can a competition be fair if competitors play by different rules? And can its results prove anything of value? No on both counts.

I nearly creased up at this point. So the only fair way to compare the effectiveness of state schools and private schools is to take away all the characteristics of one and give it to the other? The manner of education is not some unfair rule, but the very centre of the debate. You may as well say you cannot fairly judge who is the better boxer between Lennox Lewis or Mike Tyson unless you make their punches equally violent and their speed equal. "X punches harder and moves faster than Y! Can you have a fair competition like this? No." By admitting that the state school rules disadvantage them in competition, the AFT tacitly admits that the private schools system is better.

MYTH: Private schools are as non-selective, open, and diverse as public schools.

I doubt this was a real myth they want to dispell. In reality, they wanted to use this as their justification. If they can't educate, at least they are "open". Yes, private schools select on the basis of ability. Good luck to them: it makes sense to gear learning towards kids based on their learning abilities and intelligence. A school where anyone can get in - a state school - may be open, but it isn't educationally effective. "Diversity" doesn't matter to me. I am not interested in anything about the kids except their intelligence and willingness to learn. As long as they have these qualities, they can be any colour.

MYTH: The evidence shows that private schools outperform public schools.

The site's own surveys shows this exactly. I can only imagine what similar studies more objective sites - and sites representing the other viewpoint - show.

MYTH: American colleges and universities, which are forced to compete, are the best in the world. If our elementary and secondary schools had to compete, they would also reach the same level of excellence.

I don't agree with either sentence of this myth, but it stands to reason that if parents have a choice about which school to send their kids, then all schools will be under pressure to do better.

MYTH: Giving parents the right to choose a private school would not cost taxpayers anything. In fact, it would save money.

Obviously, this isn't true, but so what? Education is already horribly expensive. Schools budgets pay for sex education lessons and all sorts of rubbish. So why not have them pay for a good education system?

MYTH: Public education in the United States is beyond repair. Years of reform efforts have achieved nothing, so we have no alternative but to try private school choice.

I don't agree with that, either. The solution is to make state schools more like private schools. The logical, pragmatic solution is for the failures to work more like the success stories. But I don't see that happening any time soon, so in the mean time, this voucher system makes perfect sense.

Peter.

It is imposing sensible disciplinary measures on the wrong-doer. Got another silly question?

How is hitting a student with a stick different from assault?


MYTH: The evidence shows that private schools outperform public schools.

The site's own surveys shows this exactly. I can only imagine what similar studies
more objective sites - and sites representing the other viewpoint - show.

At best, it shows that the private schools have marginally better results. Moreover, because private schools are selective about who they admit, they cannot be considered representative of the student population as a whole.

MYTH: American colleges and universities, which are forced to compete, are the best in the world. If our elementary and secondary schools had to compete, they would also reach the same level of excellence.

I don't agree with either sentence of this myth, but it stands to reason that if parents have a choice about which school to send their kids, then all schools will be under pressure to do better.

"Pressure" and "competition" do not automatically lead to anything beneficial if public schools do not have the means to compete. It is a simplistic analysis to argue that public schools can somehow "compete" with private ones in any way to improve them. How will this be accomplished?

JoshG,

Forgive me for ignoring the "you say public, I say private, let's call the whole thing off" debate. I also apologize for being very brief. (I'm busy.)

Fixing public education. Didn't Bush Sr. do that? Maybe it was Reagan, or Carter, or Ford or Nixon. It ain't fixed yet. Maybe some more cash will do the trick. When your car's transmission breaks down you get it fixed. If it breaks down yearly you get another car. (Anyone want to buy a slightly used education system. We'll throw in floor mats.)
Vouchers do not cost more. Every plan I've seen calls for giving the parents what it cost the state to educate their child.

Yes, comparing public to private schools is comparing apples to oranges. (I'm using the US definition of public and private schools.) Public schools must take the incorrigibles that drop out of private schools. Why must someone whose parents can't afford private school tuition along with the public school tuition (It's called taxes) have to be in the disrupted class? (Do teachers generally teach to the slowest paced student in the room? Perhaps I've got the wrong impression there, teachers?) Should someone who can't afford a mansion be forced into cellblock "D" with the incorrigibles of society?

Peter,

I try not to respond to you unless you directly respond to me. Yes, I am pro-choice on murder. If you choose to kill Osama Bin Laden or imprison him for life I won't think less of you and I believe you should have that choice. (Yes, that is a silly example.) You are picking a nit on the rhetoric. I should say, "I'm pro-choice on everything, except really extreme non-controversial stuff."

Why must someone whose parents can't afford private school tuition along with the public school tuition (It's called taxes) have to be in the disrupted class? (Do teachers generally teach to the slowest paced student in the room? Perhaps I've got the wrong impression there, teachers?) Should someone who can't afford a mansion be forced into cellblock "D" with the incorrigibles of society?

There can be special public schools for said "incorrigibles." As Peter noted all the same, discipline should not be absent in any school.

Vouchers do not cost more.

Except they are no different than tax credits, which most certainly cost money in the form of lower revenue.

JoshG,

Thank you for not answering the question. I ask again, why must poorer people contend with class disruptors?

If a school so fails that it gets less money than it needs to poorly educate, am I supposed to cry for its lost revenue?

My Grade school, a school now involved in the Voucher plan cost about $3,000. The Cleveland schools cost about $5,000. Granted, the system has a huge amount of waste,(Using taxicabs, for example) which should be expected from people without a business degree, but that can be worked out.

Accountability: Golden Christian academy, Islamic School of the Osais, and Islamic Academy of the arts and sciences were closed down. Oasis had convicted murders giving lectures and had faculty members look around for fires. And their affinity for religious fundamentalism, but that wasn't the reason they were cut out of the program. So their is your "oversight". Now, try fireing a bad teacher in the public school system if you want to see "unaccountability."

For those who care, my grade school has many more minorities than it did during my marticulation.

Thank you for not answering the question. I ask again, why must poorer people contend with class
disruptors?

They shouldn't, but greater streaming will ensure that they don't have to contend with them. More to the point, I'm not sure "class disruptors" are so serious or widespread a problem as they are made out to be.

If a school so fails that it gets less money than it needs to poorly educate, am I supposed to cry for its lost revenue?

How will a school improve if its funding is CUT?

In Britain, a public school is one your parents pay fees for you to attend. Such schools are owned by members of the public, rather than the state. I think it makes more sense to call private schools public schools. The same should be done for "public parks" when people really mean "state parks".

Peter. If someone was standing in your front yard (or on the property of a club that you were a member of) who wasn't supposed to be there would you say:

A: "Get out of here this is private property."
or
B: "Get out of here this is public property."

* Ending the Gestapo-like witchhunts of the ACLU, so that religious biology teachers who teach evolution and also teach some of the problems with the theory are not sent out of school any more than schoolgirls who wear green and red scarves and say "Merry Christmas" in the classroom

Neither of those is documented as happening. They are Republican myths that got started on talk radio (on the same radio programs where they said UFOs are abducting people and the government is testing biological weapons on US citizens by crop dusting neighborhoods)

Erm, just to throw my two cents in.

I don't think the ACLU goes after instructors who are religious simply for being religious, or for teaching theory problems.

In such a case where this happens, I believe that the ACLU would go after "religious biology teachers who teach evolution and also teach some of the problems with the theory" for saying things like "There are many problems with the theory of evolution, primarily it being that it argues against Creationism in the Biblical sense. Furthermore, when you look at evolution in this timeline against where the Bible says Creation happened blah blah blah..."

I don't care if my child's biology teacher is Atheist or Taoist or Christian. I do care if my child's biology teacher starts teaching religion.

They're a science teacher, not a theology teacher.

(I'm going to stay out of the rest of it, 'cause I don't know enough about vouchers to make half decent comments, and I haven't an opinion on them either.)

Josh G.,

How much is enough money? I won't argue specific examples; poor administrators are to blame for not updating textbooks but buying janitors laptops. (For you nit pickers this comes from faded memory of a 60 minutes about a ps#### in NY, NY. I can't be more specific because I was about twelve.)

If a school is "broken" since Nixon and we keep rewarding it failure by increasing its budget, when should we stop and allow its students to go elsewhere?

As for "disruptors" not being much of a problem, where did you go to school Josh? Any teachers like to talk from experience.

If a school is "broken" since Nixon and we keep rewarding it failure by increasing its budget, when should we stop and allow its students to go elsewhere?

There're aren't many schools that have had all the same faculty and administration for three decades.

In any case, perhaps looking at the REASONS why a school is "broken" and taking measures to correct them would be more useful?

It is far too simplistic a solution simply to label a school (or the system) as a "failure" and start indirectly subsidizing PRIVATE schools with PUBLIC money.

JoshG,

No one wants to subsidize Private schools. We are talking about giving the tax money back to the PRIVATE citizen to use as he sees fit.

(BTW there is no PUBLIC money it is ALL private then taxed. Thanks for the slow one over the middle of the plate.)

While the school is "broken" everyone must still attend? Must all the pupils remain seated during a fire as the firemen determine the cause? Why is evacuating it in one case ok but not in the other?

Do you have children in public schools? That is a serious question, Josh. It is loaded and your answer may lead to what Morgan would consider a flame, but it is serious. (Note to Morgan: Personal life on TV show boards is irrelevant. On RM boards it can [and probably will] lead to questioning someone’s core beliefs. On PM boards the poster and the post can be inseparable.)

I have children in public schools. If I could afford it they would be out of there. (Before someone says I should sacrifice more for them, please find me a lower rent apartment.) (And, yes, the biggest part of education is the parent, but I'd get all the options on the Cadillac if I had a CHOICE.)

Note to Morgan: Personal life on TV show boards is irrelevant. On RM boards it can [and probably will] lead to questioning someone’s core beliefs. On PM boards the poster and the post can be inseparable. Note to Berry: that's not my call, nor is it yours. It's Wes's call, and ultimately Phil's.

It's up to Phil if he wants PM to operate under different rules than the rest of nitcentral.

No one wants to subsidize Private schools. We are talking about giving the tax money back to the PRIVATE citizen to use as he sees fit.

Except those people that are receiving the tax money will use it for the exact purpose of paying for private school tuition, fees that without the vouchers would NOT be going to the school.


While the school is "broken" everyone must still attend? Must all the pupils remain seated during a fire as the firemen determine the cause? Why is evacuating it in one case ok but not in the other?

And, no, I do not have children attending public school, primarily because only 20 months ago I was still in a public high school myself.

JoshG,

You quoted one question answered another. (You have a fine future in politics.) To help you out I'll cut and paste it again:

While the school is "broken" everyone must still attend? Must all the pupils remain seated during a fire as the firemen determine the cause? Why is evacuating it in one case ok but not in the other?
(I don't want to miss an opportunity to say that again.)

Except those people that are receiving the tax money will use it for the exact purpose of paying for private school tuition, fees that without the vouchers would NOT be going to the school. --JoshG (Sorry about the different quoting style. I just quoted you quoting me and I want to set this apart somehow.)

Those people would not be subsidizing the public school system if they weren't forced to. If I "tax" you one pencil and give you back one pencil are you any richer? If you needed the pencil for private school tuition and I gave back your own pencil, would I be subsidizing the private school? Would I be subsidizing your subsidizing a private school? If you never had a pencil the answer to that second question is, "Yes."

However I just "gave" you the pencil I "taxed" from you. How long I hold it doesn't matter. It is your pencil.

You view the after tax situation as "normal" and think the state is actually granting the citizens something. It can only "give back" what it took. Your non-voucher systems force people to subsidize public schools (even people who left school 20 months ago and have no children). Vouchers would take that choice from the government and let WE THE PEOPLE make our own choices. (Like you had before I "taxed" away your pencil.)

(Of course Mama State must pwotect her wittle citizens fwom demsewlves.)

Morgan,

Yes, it is my call. I am the first (not only) censor of me. I can't censor Peter, ScottN, Wes, or you, but I better censor myself. (Wes does a good job. I wouldn't want to add to it.) Eventually it is Wes's call. Eventually it is Phil's call. First, however, it is my call. (No one, not even [fill in name here], can escape responsibility for their own actions.)

I bring this up to you because you don't agree about PM being different. Although we agree about the TV show boards and RM (though reasons may differ) we will have a disagreement about PM until the cows come home. (That expression always puzzled me -- why do I want to live with cows?) This is another example (if you need another) of Berry thinks PM is different.

Well, the best answer to any question is another question...

You view the after tax situation as "normal" and think the state is actually granting the citizens something. It can only "give back" what it took. Your non-voucher systems force people to subsidize public schools (even people who left school 20 months ago and have no children). Vouchers would take that choice from the government and let WE THE PEOPLE make our own choices. (Like you had before I "taxed" away your pencil.)

The issue is not whether the after-tax situation is "normal," but whether it represents the status-quo. Vouchers, like any tax credit, amount to an expenditure on the part of government. If funding for the public system is not cut by an amount corresponding to the funding for vouchers, this represents a net increase in expenditures for education.


Those people would not be subsidizing the public school system if they weren't forced to.

The same can be said for all government services; shall we make taxes voluntary?

Hey don't you understand, William? The money you earn at work isn't yours. It is the government's. All the money in the country belongs to the state, but thankfully it is willing to give a little out to the people.[/JoshG]

It costs the government money to give tax credits that allow the people some of their money back. I love that! By that logic, the government owns all the wealth in the country by rights, any any wages that people earn are in fact a tax on the generous government that gives us it! :D

William, I won't speculate as to why you don't argue, but I have one reason right at the back of my mind.

Peter.

Why Peter! I think you just said something I agree with! I think you're implying by that statement that the Income Tax is b.s., and I agree! This could be the begining of a new era between you and me.

Hey don't you understand, William? The money you earn at work isn't yours. It is the government's. All the money in the country belongs to the state, but thankfully it is willing to give a little out to the people.[/JoshG]

Thanks for twisting my words.

It costs the government money to give tax credits that allow the people some of their money back. I love that! By that logic, the government owns all the wealth in the country by rights, any any wages that people earn are in fact a tax on the generous government that gives us it! :D

Except these tax credits are not alloted in proportion with the amount someone pays in taxes. That is, not everyone contributes the same amount in taxes, so any tax credits given irrespective to the amount they pay are not about "returning the money of individuals" but rather "taking from all taxpayers and giving to others," i.e, REDISTRIBUTION (which I have no absolute problems with, btw).

This is of course what all government programs and services are: taxing all and spending on things that constitute the public good, i.e., education.

Now, a PRIVATE school is one funded not through taxes but through tuition fees collected from PRIVATE individuals. If the State enacts policies to assist private individuals to pay tuition fees through tax credits linked to the cost of tuition and NOT to the amount of taxes they pay, that is SUBSIDIZATION.

I should add that it would not very difficult to derive Marxist analyses from your conception of property.

If your earnings belong to you because you worked for them, the "capitalists" are thus "stealing" your earnings as "profit," as you, not them, added value to a good or service through your own labour.

Why Peter! I think you just said something I agree with! I think you're implying by that statement that the Income Tax is bullsh!t, and I agree! This could be the begining of a new era between you and me.

If you can justify profits by saying that they are essential to the incentive to work and the very functioning of the liberal economic system, then why can you not justify taxation for the funding of the essential activities of the State?

And, no, I'm not a Marxist.

William, will you contact me privately? mark_morgan@yahoo.com I think we're more in agreement than disagreement on this, and it brings up important issues I don't want to clutter up this thread with.

If you wish to keep the conversation public I will certainly respect your wishes.

William, I won't speculate as to why you don't argue, but I have one reason right at the back of my mind. -- Peter

Um, because I was asleep.


JoshG,

It would be unfair of me to continue with out asking if you can respond to both Peter and me. I have no intention of taking unfair advantage of you.

After saying I'll stop if you need the time to respond to Peter, I'll ask a third time, "While the school is "broken" everyone must still attend? Must all the pupils remain seated during a fire as the firemen determine the cause? Why is evacuating it in one case ok but not in the other?" (In fairness the second time can be seen as a joke and the first can be seen as a rhetorical flourish.) Please answer this with a statement.

OK, you're for redistribution through taxation. Guys 20 months out of school and with no kids should be forced to pay for things they don't want and can't use, OK. The government has determined I should use legal intoxicants and get a "sex therapist" and you should pay. What, that isn't a valid use of "Government" money? (I put words in your mouth; it is "your" money.) What do you think is a valid governmental use of your money? Careful, don't answer me. Think about it.

Peter,
To defend Webber he said "Income" tax. User fees, sales taxes, etc., would be ok by his logic. (Of course you would need a small government to rely on that, but I'm a Libertarian and think government should be small anyway.)

**Willima: Exactly! Besides, as I understnad the whole Income Tax thing is ONLY supposed to be implemented during time of war, but after WWII it was kept permanently, by goign striahg tinot Korea, then Vietnam then focusing on the Cold War, then the Persian Gulf, then Kosovo, and now Afghanistan/Georgia (The former Russian republic state of, not the U.S. state of)/Phillipenese(sp?).

Peter, if you can find a copy of this book in the U.K. I suggeest you read The Federal Mafia: How The Government Illegally Imposes and Unlawfully Collects Income Taxes by Irwin Schiff. The man has taken on the IRS and won several times!

This topic has a lot to read, so I may have missed it, but did anyone bring up the GI Bill? It's government giving money to soldiers to use at any college they please, even if it is a religous school. Why should public school students have the same ability?

As for accountability, most studies show that private school students do better on tests etc than their public school counterparts, especially in the inner cities where this program is being targeted at.

The reason the NEA opposes school vouchers is because they don't want to lose their stranglehold on the public school system and the money that comes with it. It's funny that the same people who believe a woman has a 'choice' to murder her child before birth don't believe that same woman has a 'choice' as to where to send the same child. ;)

Starkists,

I agree. Those lazy goof offs never shot anyone while under fire. Private grammar school is not an option for the wimps of today.

Starkist,

I think you have a typo in /i{Why should public school students have the same ability?} maybe it is just me, but shouldn't that say "shouldn't"?

Or better yet, the Pell grant, which is a college level voucher.

A intresting letter in the Plain Dealer pointed out that if busing cost more than vouchers ever could, yet no one cared about the money. The second, Teachers in Cleveland recieve yearly raises. Cost of living, senority, so they are the source of budget eating.

After saying I'll stop if you need the time to respond to Peter, I'll ask a third time, "While the school is "broken" everyone must still attend? Must all the pupils remain seated during a fire as the firemen determine the cause? Why is evacuating it in one case ok but not in the other?" (In fairness the second time can be seen as a joke and the first can be seen as a rhetorical flourish.) Please answer this with a statement.

Well, if a school is failing in some tangible way, then, NO, students should have the ability to transfer to other schools that aren't "broken."

But before I commit to any definite answer, you need to define what you mean by "broken." Would this be due to a lack of discipline in the classroom? School violence? Inadequate school materials (textbooks, etc.)? Poorly trained teachers? Would vouchers solve these problems? Not really.

OK, you're for redistribution through taxation. Guys 20 months out of school and with no kids should be forced to pay for things they don't want and can't use, OK. The government has determined I should use legal intoxicants and get a "sex
therapist" and you should pay. What, that isn't a valid use of "Government" money? (I put words in your mouth; it is "your" money.) What do you think is a valid governmental use of your money? Careful, don't answer me. Think about it.

The use of absurd examples is pointless - any sort of government program is redistribution insofar that it does not benefit people with respect to the amount individuals pay in taxes. A strong education system, for example, benefits me when I'm in school, will benefit my children, and benefits the economy as a whole by having a skilled workforce.

Simply because I may not use a particular government service does not mean that it is not advantageous in its broader purpose. I may never directly require the services of the fire department, but that does not mean I should have any qualms about contributing towards its maintenance.

In terms of what I would define as the role of government (and hence what constitutes a valid use of "my money"), I agree with the description at the following site:

http://www.zompist.com/gummint.html

As for accountability, most studies show that private school students do better on tests etc than their public school counterparts, especially in the inner cities where this program is being targeted at.

Why do you think that is the case? WHY do private schools (apparently) do better? Might it be because they pick and choose their students based on certain academic standards? (That is, they admit BETTER students, while public schools cannot discriminate as to who they let in.)

You cannot conclude that private schools are better than public ones when their students represent inherently biased samples of the student population.

Thanks for twisting my words.

Well it did sound like what you were saying was that all the money in the country by rights belonged to the government. You still haven’t corrected yourself, for that matter.

Except these tax credits are not alloted in proportion with the amount someone pays in taxes. That is, not everyone contributes the same amount in taxes, so any tax credits given irrespective to the amount they pay are not about "returning the money of individuals" but rather "taking from all taxpayers and giving to others," i.e, REDISTRIBUTION (which I have no absolute problems with, btw).

o_O Last time I checked, a tax credit was a way for people to pay less tax. If they pay less tax they keep more of their own money. Have I gone wrong somewhere there?

I should add that it would not very difficult to derive Marxist analyses from your conception of property.

If your earnings belong to you because you worked for them, the "capitalists" are thus "stealing" your earnings as "profit," as you, not them, added value to a good or service through your own labour.

Sorry, but that isn’t logical at all. Taxation is compulsory. Whereas governments confiscate the property of their subjects on pain of imprisonment, people who buy something from a shop or work for their boss do so voluntarily. You cannot steal from someone without compulsion. “Stealing” with permission is called giving, or trading.

If you can justify profits by saying that they are essential to the incentive to work and the very functioning of the liberal economic system, then why can you not justify taxation for the funding of the essential activities of the State?

You can do exactly that. The trouble is taxation doesn’t fund that. The essential activities of the state were paid for adequately by a few per cent of national income a century ago (and this is when we had an empire spanning 1/4 of the globe to maintain!). Now around 40% of GNP is taken by the taxman. That tells me that 7/8 of my taxes are spent on non-essential stuff.

To defend Webber he said "Income" tax. User fees, sales taxes, etc., would be ok by his logic. (Of course you would need a small government to rely on that, but I'm a Libertarian and think government should be small anyway.)

Yes, I agree. The crucial thing about income tax as opposed to the other taxes is that the others are all voluntary. If you do not want to pay VAT you don’t have to buy that TV. If you don’t want to pay fuel tax you can cycle to work. But taxes on income leave no choice about it, and mean endless snooping into others’ affairs. Also, income taxes tend to be massively unfair. I would hope that everyone from left to right would agree that if man A earns 8 times as much as man B, then A should pay eight times as much income tax. But with the “progressive” nature of direct taxation, he may be paying ten or twelve times more income tax. Some incentive to do well for yourself!

Willima: Exactly! Besides, as I understnad the whole Income Tax thing is ONLY supposed to be implemented during time of war, but after WWII it was kept permanently, by goign striahg tinot Korea, then Vietnam then focusing on the Cold War, then the Persian Gulf, then Kosovo, and now Afghanistan/Georgia (The former Russian republic state of, not the U.S. state of)/Phillipenese(sp?).

Hehe that sounds familiar. Britain was told the same during the Napoleonic Wars.

If I were Prime Minister, I would cut income tax from 22p in the pound now to 11p within eight to ten years, and perhaps to a final rate of 9p (along with a very, very substantial married couples allowance – so as to support the family). If crime fell fast enough and military recovery were swift, then it could perhaps be abolished completely. Merely by making divorce virtually impossible, almost the entire £85+ billion raised from income tax could be freed in taxes, as the social consequences have huge financial as well as moral and societal costs.

Peter, if you can find a copy of this book in the U.K. I suggeest you read The Federal Mafia: How The Government Illegally Imposes and Unlawfully Collects Income Taxes by Irwin Schiff. The man has taken on the IRS and won several times!

Thanks, I’ll keep an eye out.

It's funny that the same people who believe a woman has a 'choice' to murder her child before birth don't believe that same woman has a 'choice' as to where to send the same child. ;)

What do you expect from people who want teachers telling 14 year olds how to put on condoms but loathe them starting a prayer?

The use of absurd examples is pointless

On the contrary, the use of extreme examples is one of the best ways to test a general principle’s worth, as John Stuart Mill showed.

Why do you think that is the case? WHY do private schools (apparently) do better?

Here’s a crazy idea! Maybe because government is bad at nearly everything! Why are public parks always covered in litter but private gardens are normally spotless and cared for? Why are public toilets usually a stomach-churning mess while the toilets in a private home are clean and tidy? Why can a private company always provide superior medical care to the state? Think about it. It is because people care about their own property in a way they just do not care about “commonly owned” property. It is because private companies have to do a good job to survive.

Peter.

Well, I think that would be an interesting school prayer, then, because we all know that not everyone is the same religion. How does one pray to Diety?

I pray to the Christian God, to the Muslim Allah, to the Jewish Yahweh, to the Buddha, the Virgin Mary, Confucius, to Universe, Divine, Diety, Zoroaster, to Satan, to Diana and Lucifer and Aradia, to Ra and Thoth and Ma'at, to Odin and Freya and Thor, to Jupiter and Juno, to Zeus and Hera, to Brigid and Cernonnus, to Parvati and Shiva, to Amaterasu, to....

We'll ignore the fact that these Dieties do not all live in harmony, or are not even cross religious...

Yup, definitely going to homeschool my child.

Well it did sound like what you were saying was that all the money in the country by rights belonged to the government. You still haven’t corrected yourself, for that matter.

Well, the actual physical nature of money DOES belong to the government (e.g., it is a crime to literally destroy money, only the gov't can print it, etc.). Individuals can only possess the value of money, not the bank notes and coins themselves.


Sorry, but that isn’t logical at all. Taxation is compulsory. Whereas governments confiscate the property of their subjects on pain of imprisonment, people who buy something from a shop or work for their boss do so voluntarily. You cannot steal from someone without compulsion. “Stealing” with permission is called giving, or
trading.

Does everyone work because they want to? Unless you wish to give up all property and live a menial existence on the streets on the charity of others, you HAVE to work. Marxists will argue that the imperative to work means you are forced (i.e., coerced) into working for the greedy capitalists, who will skim off some of your labour as profit.

Now, does living on welfare provide a particularly elaborate material existence?

You can do exactly that. The trouble is taxation doesn’t fund that. The essential
activities of the state were paid for adequately by a few per cent of national income a century ago (and this is when we had an empire spanning 1/4 of the globe to maintain!). Now around 40% of GNP is taken by the taxman. That tells me that 7/8 of my taxes are spent on non-essential stuff.

What are the essential activities of the state?

What does the state do now? What is the revenue it collects used for?

What sort of infrastructure is necessary to the functioning of the economy?

A hundred years ago there was comparably limited spending by the state on public health, pensions, education, etc. There was limited regulation of banking, financial systems, etc. People were less educated, less healthy.

What would you do to turn back the clock? How would we benefit?

Also, income taxes tend to be massively unfair. I would hope that everyone from left to right would agree that if man A earns 8 times as much as
man B, then A should pay eight times as much income tax. But with the “progressive” nature of direct taxation, he may be paying ten or twelve times more income tax. Some incentive to do well for yourself!

Even Adam Smith knew the value of taxes that are "related to the ability to pay" - that is, progressive taxes.

Let's say a flat tax is set at 15%. A person making $50,000/year will pay $7,500. Someone else making $500,000/year will pay $75,000. Obviously the person making 500k will live much better materially.

Now, let's increase the tax rate to 20%. The person making $500,000 now pays $100,000 in taxes, while the other making only $50,000 will pay $10,000. Now, on whom do you think this tax increase would have the greater impact? Obviously the $2,500 difference in the less-well-off person's income has a much greater impact on their lifestyle. For the wealthier individual, that's one less ivory back scratcher (to borrow a phrase from The Simpsons...).

The key concept here is the Law of Diminishing Returns. That is, the more you have of something, the less valuable each individual unit of that something becomes to you. This is, of course, how commodity prices are established, along with securities and most major currencies.

I'm not arguing for 90% marginal tax rates here (an absolute maximum of 50% - or perhaps somewhat lower - is fine; an inheritance tax on fortunes of, say, $5m and up will do the rest). I *am* arguing for fair taxation. In absolute terms, who would benefit most from a flat tax? Why the very rich, of course! Who will "gain" least? The middle class. Any tax cuts they receive will be smaller in both absolute and relative terms.

Okay, enough of that tangent...

If I were Prime Minister, I would cut income tax from 22p in the pound now to 11p within eight to ten years, and perhaps to a final rate of 9p (along with a very, very substantial married couples allowance – so as to support the family). If crime fell fast enough and military recovery were swift, then it could perhaps be abolished completely. Merely by making divorce virtually impossible, almost the entire £85+ billion raised from income tax could be freed in taxes, as the social consequences have huge financial as well as moral and societal costs.

So we're going to enhance individual freedom by interfering in their personal affairs? Hmm?

And what's all this about "crime falling" and "military recovery"?

On the contrary, the use of extreme examples is one of the best ways to test a general principle’s worth, as John Stuart Mill showed.

"Absurd" and "extreme" are not synonymous.


Here’s a crazy idea! Maybe because government is bad at nearly everything!

Oh? How about the justice system? Are libraries failing the world over? Would you like to prove your baseless assumption and generalization?

Why are public parks always covered in litter but private gardens are normally spotless and cared for?

Generalization! If it were ALWAYS true, maybe it has to do with people being irresponsible?

Why are public toilets usually a stomach-churning mess while the toilets in a private home are clean and tidy?

Most public toilets in shopping malls or restaurants are neither owned nor maintained by government. The cleanliness of a washroom has far more to do with a) how many people use it and b) how often it's cleaned than who owns it.

Why can a private company always provide superior medical care to the state?

Firstly, that's a considerably more complicated issue than you are portraying it. Secondly, the quality of medical care has considerably more to do with the competence of those providing it and the resources with which they have to do it.

Along the same lines, how many private companies provide basic immunization and other such things to everyone in a state?

Think about it. It is because people care about their own property in a way they just do not care about “commonly owned” property. It is because private companies have to do a good job to survive.

Indeed, but your examples do not illustrate that point well, if at all. Also, you implicitly assume that the State is some sort of eternally stable construction, that does not have "to do a good job to survive." What, do you think, is the origin of civil wars, revolutions, etc.?

As for accountability, most studies show that private school students do better on tests etc than their public school counterparts, especially in the inner cities where this program is being targeted at.

As has been pointed out before private schools have accademic standards that you have to meet to get in public schools pretty much have to take you if are the right age and passed the previous leval.

The reason the NEA opposes school vouchers is because they don't want to lose their stranglehold on the public school system and the money that comes with it.

That's not the only reason. The other problem is that a lot of prople genuinly are worried that with public schools as underfunded as they already are if you start taking more money away from them they will get worse. The students who couldn't get into private school will be stuck in even worse public schools and those who fell behind early will never have a chance to catch up.

That one hits close to home for me because I bairly made it through middle school and the later part elementary school (mostly for compleat lack of trying or caring, and being dyslexic didn't help anything). I entered High School as a C student and left as a B student. I did 2 years at a local college barely on the honor role (3.0 GPA or higher). This past Semester at GA State I made the Dean's list (for students with a 3.5 GPA or higher). If the system had just left me behind in my early days I might have never had the chace to catch up.

Of course others think that if public schools were compeating with private schools for students they would find ways to improve in order to get the cash.

Also, income taxes tend to be massively unfair. I would hope that everyone from left to right would agree that if man A earns 8 times as much as man B, then A should pay eight times as much income tax. But with the “progressive” nature of direct taxation, he may be paying ten or twelve times more income tax. Some incentive to do well for yourself!

I always had the other probelm with income taxes. Rich folks have accountants who can find loop holes and pay less taxes. I think the laws need to be simplified so that people can't find so many ways around the laws. In a country where the top 10% of the people control 80% of the money I'm not too worried about them getting shafted in paying too much. I'm worried about them not paying.

Peter and Brian Webber,

Last I checked I was a male. Unless you are trying to hit on me stop calling me Willima. (If you are trying to hit on me I prefer Willamina.) Do I have to do my Barry White voice and prove my heterosexuality by hitting on every chick here?

JoshG,

I am busy. I'll read the link later. I'm not sure of who posted "broken" first but it being in quotes should tell you it is an inexact term for a plethora of things that are not directly related to each other. Teachers that can not pass a standardized test in the subject they are teaching, out of date history books, heat that works only intermittently, janitors dealing with century and a half old buildings but with new laptop computers, principles that are more concerned with moving up to superintendent than the school, school boards filled with the $tupid brother-in-laws of powerful politicians fall under the rubric "broken". We can ask Wes if we should save bandwidth with "broken" or copy and paste that every time. No, not every "broken" school has all these symptoms, but I can find examples of every one of these in a short walk. (OK, not the laptops, I'm stealing that from a 60 minutes in the eighties or seventies.)

So, by not having vouchers you would prevent the escape from conditions like that? Oh, Pesti mentioned Pell Grants and Starkist mentioned the GI bill. Why are high schools different than colleges? Where do we draw the line? More importantly, who gets the pencil? ("Aww, Geez, not the pencil, AGAIN.")

Yes, vouchers would solve them. When the customers flee a business the business either changes to bring them back or dies. Either the $tupid brother-in-laws go or the schools close. (If they are irredeemable why shed a tear for them.)

Where monopolies exist they always abuse that power (Microsoft, Ma Bell, Soviet Union). The counter example is your local utility and cable providers that are regulated like heck to prevent that abuse. What vouchers would do is stop subsidizing a monopoly and give choice back to the people who pay the bills.

What got the schools into this mess was not a lack of money. As long as I've been aware money has been thrown at the schools. It was probably thrown at them before I was born. When there is a problem we rewarded it with more money (tax payer's money BTW). The only solution that has been proven to work is a free market one.

Why are high schools different than colleges? Where do we draw the line? Ask me a hard one. In the United States we have the principle of universal education k-12. Colleges can limit their enrollment based on religious affiliation or academic achievement or just not having enough slots. (Try getting into a Special Ed teaching program that has only 26 slots per year, available once a year.)

As long as we as a country maintain the principle of universal K-12 education--some places, they arrest parents whose kids don't go to school--then we have a responsibility to find a solution that gives an excellent education to all students. I worked for a long time in education. The teachers I met were almost all very well educated and fanatically dedicated to doing a good job. They are underpaid, in buildings that are literally falling apart, and most importantly chained to a beauracracy that gives them no authority.

If we continue to require universal k-12 education, then why build a system that states explicitly "some students get a better education at state expense"? Private schools are allowed to limit the students who go there; we would be spending public money with the stated goal to only benefit the elite. That is inconsistent with the egalitarian principles of our school system.

Which leaves us with two choices, in my opinion: abandon universal education--and end our time as the only existing world power as smarter countries obliterate us--or find a solution to the education problem that does not sort out the elite at taxpayers' expense.

A better solution is to: hire the best teachers. Give them the best training, and the best equipment. Obliterate the beauracracy--people and rules that regulate every breath of a teacher's life. Leave them alone to do their job. Evaluate them at the end of the year, and keep only the best around doing the best job.

This is, in my mind, a solution that much better upholds the American principles of equal opportunity.

And what's with this "Academic Standing" The only schools that are participating in this program are parochial day schools. More people left in Grade school due to discipline reasons than ever left for academic reasons. Those who did leave for academic reasons had learning disabilities, and most schools are not equipped for that. Since most students don't have learning disabilities, you're argument is starting to sound like Du Bois's "Talented Tenth" argument. The schools that do have high academic standing proberly would never enter this program in the first place.

Well, I think that would be an interesting school prayer, then, because we all know that not everyone is the same religion. How does one pray to Diety?

Who said you had to cater for every minority religion? So long as they are not pressured in any way to take part, things are fine. It is no different than forcing liberal, pleasure-driven immorality on schoolkids by giving them condom lessons.

Does everyone work because they want to? Unless you wish to give up all property and live a menial existence on the streets on the charity of others, you HAVE to work. Marxists will argue that the imperative to work means you are forced (i.e., coerced) into working for the greedy capitalists, who will skim off some of your labour as profit.

Marxists are idiots. Sure, working and trading is the best and probably the only way to get along in this world. Good thing too.

Even Adam Smith knew the value of taxes that are "related to the ability to pay" - that is, progressive taxes.

Oh come on. That is a ridiculous interpretation. Progressive taxes do not take account of ability to pay - they are about taking as much as possible from those who earn a lot. Proportional taxes take from each according to their ability to pay, so if you earn twice as much as me, you pay twice as much income tax. What could be more equitable and reasonable than that? Think about it. Each of us has some property that needs to be defended from domestic thieves and foreign invaders. We each have a certain share in that. If someone earns 5% of all the money in the country each year, it is only reasonable that he contribute 5% of the total cost of all the defence of that property. If someone earns 0.00005% then he should pay that proportion.

I *am* arguing for fair taxation. In absolute terms, who would benefit most from a flat tax? Why the very rich, of course! Who will "gain" least? The middle class. Any tax cuts they receive will be smaller in both absolute and relative terms.

No, you are not. You are arguing for unfair taxation that especially penalises those who do well for themselves. Sure, if someone earns 20% more than me he should pay 20% more tax, but not 40% more or 70% more. That is not fair. Fairness is each person giving the same few pence on every pound they earn in income tax. It also means, for example, that people who want to earn a bit more money are taxed so highyl on their marginal earnings that they have no incentive to work harder.

A flat tax would be equally unfair, of course. A flat tax would mean the same amount of money taken from all no matter how little or much they earn. It would penalise people who don't do well for themselves.

A proportional, flat rate tax is the fairest way. It takes account of earnings, and ensures that those who earn the most pay the most, and those who earn the least pay the least.

So we're going to enhance individual freedom by interfering in their personal affairs? Hmm?

How do you work that one out?

And what's all this about "crime falling" and "military recovery"?

The British crime rates are horribly high, and our military needs renewal. Until that happens, total abolition of income tax would not be practical.

If it were ALWAYS true, maybe it has to do with people being irresponsible?

It does. They treat their own property respionsibly. People care for private property in the way they do not care for governmetn property.

Along the same lines, how many private companies provide basic immunization and other such things to everyone in a state?

I don't see the relevance, but the answer, to the best of my knowledge, is none. If you are arguing that you will always need a minimal level of state provision for those who cannot afford to go private, then I agree with you. But that hardly means for ever taxing and spending the money people earn. I can spend my own money far better than any government can.

I always had the other probelm with income taxes. Rich folks have accountants who can find loop holes and pay less taxes. I think the laws need to be simplified so that people can't find so many ways around the laws. In a country where the top 10% of the people control 80% of the money I'm not too worried about them getting shafted in paying too much. I'm worried about them not paying.

Taxes on high earners in fact yield very little, and by reducing them, you usually get more revenue because it discourages fiddling the figures, and encourages harder work to earn it as well as helps the economy. But I agree that a simpler tax system is best. But that would mean one single rate for everyone, saying, for example, that for every dollar you earn, no matter how much, you still have to pay 20 cents to the state (married couples and pensioner allowances excluded, of course).

Peter.

Merely by making divorce virtually impossible

Bad idea PEter. Very bad idea. I agree that it's too easy to get, and the some people elave their SOs for dumb reasons, but really, what about the abused? What about people who just flat out HATE each other? I don't buy that 'staying together for the kids' argument. All that kid is gonne learn is that all amrriages are loveless, and that men and women just hate each other with no hope of getting along. Me and my parents are much better off now that they've been divorced for 10 years then we would be if they stayed together. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if I wound up the victim of a double murder-suicide if they';d stayed together. Besides, I like my Mom's new husband (his name is Peter coincidentally enough). He's an older, Hispanic version of yours truly, the Fanboy, geek-chic, super-cool Nerd type.

Who said you had to cater for every minority religion? So long as they are not pressured in any way to take part, things are fine. It is no different than forcing liberal, pleasure-driven immorality on schoolkids by giving them condom lessons.

Not exactly the same thing. Teaching someone how to use a condom is information, like teaching someone how to drive safely, or how to use a computer. They don't have to use that information once they have it. Don't have sex, don't get a driver's licence, and don't get a computer or work at a computer heavy job. Prayer on the other hand is an activity, not information.

Exactly Fitzie! I know how to put a condom on but I'm still a virgin. I'm good with computers but I don't have a computer-based job.

Brian, that is a flawed and selfish way to look at divorce, which causes misery for all children but those born in the most angry and miserable relationships. Divorces happen because of selfish people who cannot be bothered to stick at a marriage to which the other partner is committed. They are quite happy to put themselves before their children, and occasionally even delude themselves that splitting up will somehow make their kids happy.

Not exactly the same thing. Teaching someone how to use a condom is information, like teaching someone how to drive safely, or how to use a computer.

Actually, teaching someone how to put on a condom and to have sex without any mention of the moral consequences is like teaching them to drive at 100mph and then apply the breaks, without explaining any of the Highway Code or the dangers. It is like teaching someone how to make a computer virus without explaining the legal and destructive consequences. First of all, you are making the ridiculous assumption that it doesn't matter which choice kids make about sex. Second, giving someone a "choice" is in itself worthless unless you give them an informed choice.

"Take this loaded gun. You have a choice to fire it at your brother or not." is giving a five-year-old a choice.

"Take this loaded gun. If you fire it at your brother he will die." is giving a five-year-old an informed choice.

If you demanded that schools gave lessons in how to murder your father would I not be allowed to object because you could say "Well your kids don't have to kill you. We are just giving them the option"?

Peter.

M. Jenkins: I believe all school prayer proposals call for localizing it. As it stands now, No one can pray. Obviously, no one expects New York City to have school prayer. But let's say, Concordia, Missouri, or some Mormon town wants to hold prayer in it's schools, or in convocations, or before football games, or during graduation, they can. Therefore praying to every venerated metaphysical being is not being proposed.

You? Children? Talk about mellowing out.

Didn't she once say it was physically impossible for her to have kids, anyway?

Peter.

And what about those who aren't the "majority"?

I spent part of my childhood in Orange County, CA. That area has an extremely large Roman Catholic population. All my friends went to catechism after school. Me, I'm Jewish, as you all well know. Do you think the "localized" prayers would have been to Hakadosh Baruch Hu? Or to Jesus?

Those who aren't "majority," Scott, are punished by having to go to the local park until the prayers are over, and then someone will fetch them.

Great for adding fuel to the already common schoolyard bullies' arsenal. Now, not only is a kid a skinny and uncoordinated freak, but they're not even a Christian!

And non Christians can't get into football games early to get the best seats, since the crowd is expected to pray at random intervals, and as for graduation...oh, they'll just mail the diploma.

Bah. I'll follow in the footsteps of the Mad Tyrant Madelyn first.

Mark Morgan,

I was joking about JoshG being a natural at politics for copying one question and not answering it. (Simple mistake Josh, you answered another question in the post and the quip was a really just a nit.) However I had to read your post several times to decide what side you are on. Geez Louise, talk about a natural politician. I might still have it wrong. I assume, Mark, that you are against vouchers. I don't know where you stand on the Cleveland case.

You mentioned old buildings. I agree. Janitors struggle valiantly with heating systems added to buildings designed to be heated by fireplaces. They struggle with electrical systems in buildings designed before Edison. They have to wire the far classroom for Internet access using what once was the coal chute. A lack of money will not get the building replaced.

I'm not making your point for you.

My high school was built in 1969 to replace an antiquated building. There were funds for this in 1969. In fairness the 150-year-old buildings were just 120 years old then. (OK, nitpickers, 117 years old) More money didn't replace them. Every President I can recall had an Education Secretary. I recall education "reforms" dating back to Nixon. Every reform had an increase in funds for those "broken" (often called "troubled") schools. OK, Mark, here's a hard question that you asked for. Why do those schools still exist? How much money should we spend? ("Enough" is not a valid answer; I don't like handing out blank checks.)

In a side issue, not specifically for Mark, I heard on NPR about the school board in a Kansas City suburb reversing several F’s a biology teacher handed out for plagiarizing a botany project. Since a “broken” school board is tarring other “good” students, should we make them pay to support that system? In other words should someone pay to have harm done to them? (Mark, if you are against vouchers, here is another hard one for you.)

Peter, Brian et Al.,
I'm not following your debate closely, but my two cents. Divorce should not be made harder. Marriage should. (Bad marriages lead to divorce, therefore cut down on bad marriages.) Oh and all students, no matter what religion or lack thereof, pray before math tests.

In my reading I came across several quotes. It was in the LP news so it cannot be claimed to without bias, but arguing bias in a direct quote is a dubious proposition.

Quote #1
"Today, and for generations to come, America will benefit from this law, which expresses our national commitment to quality education for our children."

Quote #2
"This year with the help of education and parent associations, we have together taken a historic step in the evolution of the federal role in education."

Quote #3
"It is not an overstatement to say this is the most important reauthorization in this legislation's history. It reshapes the manner in which the federal government supports public schools across the nation."

The author plays, "Nope that wasn't 'W', either." They are:
#1) Gerald Ford in 1974
#2) Jimmy Carter in 1978
#3) Edward Kennedy in 1994 (Yes, the same "Sen. Ted Kennedy that gushed the Bush Jr.'s reform bill is "the most important piece of legislation most of us will ever work on."

No, I'm not making it up. "Reform" (and it's attendant increase in funding) has been going on for years.

William Berry: Amen to that

Matt,

Which God (gods, Goddess, goddesses, or ____) is that Amen for? Take it to Religious musings.
(Or did you mean, "Yea, brother!")

However I had to read your post several times to decide what side you are on. Geez Louise, talk about a natural politician. I might still have it wrong. I assume, Mark, that you are against vouchers. I don't know where you stand on the Cleveland case. So did I! It could have been better written--my whole post feels like the first draft you turn in to the teacher in high school freshman English. It was all much clearer in my head.

I am opposed to vouchers for two reasons: first, private and religious schools can pick and choose students based on academic achievement or for other reasons. Public schools cannot. Therefore vouchers are designed specifically to end the goal of universal access to education.

I should have read the article in the Economist before posting. It is not clear from that article if the private and religious schools have to accept every student with a voucher, and what the criteria are to get a voucher. It's possible the Cleveland system eliminates my concerns on that regard.

Secondly, I oppose vouchers because they are a short-term bandaid for an entrenched long-term problem. You ask, if the building is burning, do the students have to wait for permission from the fire marshall to escape? Apparently, some still do--anyone who does not qualify for the voucher or who does not get one for some reason must stay in the building while it burns.

OK, Mark, here's a hard question that you asked for. Why do those schools still exist? How much money should we spend? Here's the math: zero for administration (superintendants, boards of education, etc.) + whatever it costs to get the buildings modern + whatever it costs to get enough modern building + enough to pay each teacher the equivalent salary of a professional of equal qualifications in a business field.

These building still exist because, in my limited experience, there is no money for capital construction but plenty for beauracratic pork. The biggest problem in the school system is a bunch of bean counters with way too much power, who are terrified of every hint of a parent's complaint or a possible lawsuit. Beuracratic fear and pettiness rules the day.

Here would be an interesting experiment: completely eliminate the Department of Education and divide its yearly budget between individual schools (not school districts).

Your example of a school board gone horribly wrong is an example of a fundamental problem that school vouchers will only bandaid. Remember, not all students will get vouchers. So some students are still going to have to put up with that nonsense. Why is it better to only help some, instead of advocating for solutions that help all?

Or are we going to abandon the American ideal of universal k-12 education?

Or do we want to move the entire school system, lock stock and barrell, into the hands of corporate and religious enterprises?

Berry: That Amen, was to the math statement.

William, You're going to have to add HUMOR tags for Matt, I guess

not all students will get vouchers -- Mark Morgan

Huh? Each school district, or state must design their own voucher system. (I think it should stay that way, but the place for the federal government in education is for another board.) I haven't read the link yet. (I’ll get around to it.) Is the Cleveland plan somehow biased? How? If the students who got expelled from every private school have to go back to the public school as the school of last resort, so? If it is biased somehow isn't allowing 20 of 30 kids leave the room better than making them all wait? It sounds to me like you are actually pro-vouchers but don't like the details of that plan.

ScottN,

I think Matt got the humor. (He didn't, um, get upset.) He wanted to point out that was for the joke in an earlier post. (He didn't find the joke funny enough to comment on. That's OK. He's allowed to his opinion. I give myself permission to have a joke fall flat once in a while. It's OK; because I'm smart enough; I'm good looking enough; and, dog gone it, people like me.)

Peter, you'll proberly enjoy this

It was the best darn login screen I've ever seen.

What was the topic, Matt?

Heh thanks, Pesti. I get The Daily Telegraph delivered actually so I first read that this morning in print form.

For the benefit of Morgan and other Netscrap users:

Under-age Pill 'not working'
By Nicole Martin
(Filed: 04/03/2002)

THE Government's commitment to cutting the high teenage pregnancy rate in Britain by improving young people's access to contraception is "completely wrong and misguided", according to research published today.

A 14-year study conducted in 16 areas found no evidence that family planning services reduced the pregnancy rate among girls under 16.

The findings, published in the Journal of Health Economics, is a blow to the Government's advisory group on teenage pregnancies which last year recommended that children wanting to have sexual intercourse before the legal age of consent should be able to receive the Pill and condoms at school.

Today's report found a higher conception rate in areas where a greater number of girls aged 13 to 15 visited family planning clinics.
For example, in the North-East, where an average of 45 girls per thousand aged 13-15 visited family planning clinics a year - the highest recorded figure - the conception rate was 11 per 1,000 girls aged 13 to 15, the highest recorded rate.

By contrast, in Oxford, where an average of only 26 girls per thousand aged 13-15 visited family planning clinics a year, the conception rate was 6 per 1,000 girls.

Dr David Paton of Nottingham University Business School, who led the study, said the findings cast serious doubt on the Government's policy of improving family planning services for teenagers.

He said socio-economic factors such as unemployment had a greater influence on the teenage pregnancy rate. He said: "Although family planning may make sexually active teenagers less likely to get pregnant, it seems that it also encourages others to start having sex."

"Some of these will get pregnant through contraceptive failure and, if anything, the overall effect of expanding family planning services for under-16s has been to increase pregnancies and abortions."

Simon Blake, a member of the Government's advisory group on teenage pregnancy and director of the sex education forum, rejected the report.

He said: "All the international evidence shows that good sex education and access to confidential advice on contraception has a positive effect on the rate of teenage pregnancy."

First off, I'm the one who uses Netscape in this household. Morgan does not.

To continue, I think I'm missing something. The last quote seems to be in favour of sex ed. So why is it "immoral" and "hedonistic" and going to bring about the downfall of civilised society as we know it?

Peter,

Why can a private company always provide superior medical care to the state?

If that is the case why does private care in the UK use NHS ICU's for their emergency Intensive Care needs?

It would also be interesting to see how many of the surgeons up for misconduct before the GMC committed the offence in private care rather than in NHS work ....

Fingers

General Motors Corporation has surgeons?

Offtopic, I'm wondering how Netscape is to blame for the Telegraph requiring registration. Especially as I use Opera.

---

Quote:

Today's report found a higher conception rate in areas where a greater number of girls aged 13 to 15 visited family planning clinics.

---

Heheheheh I knew that would come up ....

GMC = General Medical Council the body that currently (probably not for long) holds responsibility for disciplinary matters within the medical profession in the UK. They have powers to suspend or even 'strike off' a doctor's registration thus making them ineligible for work in the UK....

Since Nitcentral neither has a Private messeging system, or a general discussion board, and Peter always brings up sex ed when education is discussed, I thought I'd just post it here. Now that I think about it I could have used E-mail.

general discussion board, You mean, the Kitchen Sink?

Ok, the Supreme Court has said that the Cleveland Voucher Program is constitutional, ironically, the same month in which the first class graduated from Eight Grade.

Brian Fitzgerald,

continued off topic from second amendment board.

I hope you don't mind the venue change. For ease of lurkers I'll cut and paste from the last board:
Education? My dear, you are talking to a Libertarian. All schools should be private and teach whatever the parents want them to teach. Why not? It works well with everything else. Should a restaurant be able to bring you a salad because it is better for you than the steak you ordered? (Before someone says some children will be expelled from every school I favor a small public school system as a school of last resort.) -- Berry responding to Dwimble

That system works fine with restaurants because rich families go to expensive restaurants, families with less money go to the Sizzler, and homeless families go to eat at a shelter. With each of those levels there is a drop in quality of the food. I don't think that education should be confined to the idea of rich kids get good schooling and poor kids get bad schooling.-- Brian Fitzgerald responding to Berry


OK, Brian lets play where am I. I want to buy an SUV. The car dealer says, "Sorry buddy but we the people have decided you need a compact like a Geo Storm." I explain that I really wanted evoluti, oops, an SUV but he insists I take creati, oops, a sub compact because he knows my needs better than me. What country am I in?

OK, second example. I order a cheeseburger at Mc Donald’s (where even the non-rich can eat!. The clerk says, "Nope, it will raise your cholesterol," as he hands me a salad. I explain that I really wanted praye, oops, I mean a cheeseburger and he explains that we the people have decided that silen, oops, I mean a salad is better for me because obviously they know what I want better than I do. What country am I in?

Gotta run. Brian, think you can reply without changing the examples to reflect the person having more choice than the only government run school provides? Just curious, since the government does such a wonderful job do you think VA hospitals can benefit from the example of our school system?

I've got news for you, Berry, not all opinions are equally valid, and in some cases, allowing people more "choice" results in Bad Things for everyone else.

Maybe you weren't aware, but there is a thing called market failure. The free market, in fact, does not exist - it's an idealization, and can never exist. Give me some examples of an education system that is completely private, then cross-reference it with the overall level of education of the people going through that system.

So how would "more choice" work in education? All vouchers do is redistribute money from the public system to private schools. And it IS redistribution, not some sort of tax refund. The indirect nature of the funding is irrelevant - it still results in lower government revenue. Are these still private schools once they become subsidized by the government? Should not the government have the same sort of oversight over these "private" schools that it does over public ones?

Oh yes, would you care to explain why, by definition, public systems are worse than private ones? Or how "more choice" always works in practice? Declarative ideological arguments are not acceptable answers.

Josh G.,

Let me get this straight. You favor less choice? If that is not so, please post again because I don't understand you.

I'll answer your questions to the best of my abilities but you better tell me what you'd accept as an answer. I tend to use examples that are usually so far out that no one can get offended, but I'll tone it down for you. BTW, anyone offended can blame you.

1)Oh yes, would you care to explain why, by definition, public systems are worse than private ones? --Josh G.

If you mean schools it is because the better students get out of failing public schools because they are from families rich enough to afford it. Why are you against giving poor families that same ability?

If you mean why does the government run hospitals so poorly, I don't know. For proof they do ask a vet if he'd rather go to a regular hospital or a VA hospital. Do you mean the government run ponzi scheme that is used for retirement? Would it surprise you that retires are not funded from savings they paid but from the social security taxes you pay now? We aren't discussing the legality of Ponzi schemes, we are discussing why it is worse than a privately run retirement account. I don't know why, Josh G, but I've seen enough retirees have to decide between rent, heat, and food. I've seen studies of average portfolios where that money they paid into the government run ponzi retirement scheme was funneled into the stock market, the bong market, T-Bills, the realestate market, plain old savings accounts at FDIC insured banks, life insurance, etc. would have been better than the $320 or so month the average retiree gets. I know it is true, but I do not know why.

Did that answer the first one?

2)Or how "more choice" always works in practice? -- Josh G.

This appears to be asking for an example. I'm always hungry, lets do lunch. There are several restaurants within my price range. I have to watch my cholesterol, so McDonald's is out. If they lose enough health conscious customers (or consumers for those in marketing) they develope a line of salads. Lo and Behold, I just described how McShakers were born.

You want another real example not based on food? Um, let's see. I like cars. Too regulated. Was the passenger side airbag a marketing ploy or a response to a "saftey standard". Gee, with government regulations the way they are it will be hard in this "free enterprise economy" to find anything I know is a pure marketing descision. Hmm. How about the Internet?

DotComs, incase you missed it, were proliferating. Those that bought real good office furniture and didn't care about making a profit eventually couldn't pay they're bills and folded. Some, like Pets.com, might have been really service oriented. Of course you got $5 of service for $2, so they folded. Do you cry for their bad business acumen? Because the market is unforgiving of folly is the market or folly to blame? I say it was the folly.

The second one isn't the best example. Maybe someone who knows the internet better than me will step forward. In the meantime, JoshG., does that answer your question?